IMO, it certainly beats having a swamp of #ifdef's all over the place
(build system, configuration system, source code, run scripts).
However, I am very generally in favor of using version control systems
to maintain different product variants, so I'm biased. I just find it
much easier to check out a branch (or apply a series of patches, which
is really the same thing) than to figure out which #ifdef's are in
effect.

It would be interesting to see a detailed proposal, or an example
involving real targets.

/Klas

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Subrata Modak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> Thanks for bringing out the ghost out of the coffin. This was an issue i
> wanted to discuss long back. Now that you have opened up the discussion,
> let me put forth my idea.
>
> I want the LTP test cases to remain as general as they can be. Let the
> ways to run the test cases be modified either during build/install time,
> or during run time, or both. This can be achieved by creating
> directories say:
>
> ltp/archs/,
> ltp/archs/arm/
> ltp/archs/sh/
> ltp/archs/*
>
> and then create some patch files like:
>
> ltp/archs/arm/during-build.patch
> ltp/archs/arm/during-run.patch
>
> 1) If the test cases need to be built with different
> parameters/identifiers/variables/ifdefs, for a particular architecture,
> then let ltp/Makefile detect that and apply say
> ltp/archs/*/during-build.patch before it starts to build. So, we get
> binaries built and suited to run for that architecture.
>
> 2) If the test cases need to be run with different parameters, then let
> the ltp/runltp detect that particular architecture and apply
> ltp/archs/*/during-run.patch on ltp/runtest/* command files and then run
> the tests.
>
> With these we will be able to retain the generalization of the tests and
> also run specific instances of tests depending on the architecture,
> memory, FS size requirements.
>
> What i would require is somebody should send me regular patches to
> update the ltp/arch/*/*.patch for their particular architectures. So you
> think that this is a feasible IDEA ?
>
> Regards--
> Subrata
>
> and then have
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 14:27 -0400, Shane Volpe wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> There are several tests in ltp that, by default, use too much memory
>> and cause small embedded systems to run out of RAM leading to kernel
>> oom-killer dumps.  I have been able to identify most of these tests on
>> my system and tweak by trial and error the input parameters to allow
>> the test to still run with out causing a omm-killer dump.
>>
>> Here are two examples that I have had to address to date:
>>
>> 1.)Fix float tests by adding -n 15 to limit the number of treads to 15
>> which by default is set to 20.
>>
>> Modified runtest/math, runtest/ltplite and  runtest/stress.part2 as follows:
>>    Changed:
>>       float_bessel cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_bessel -v
>>       float_exp_log cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_exp_log -v
>>       float_iperb cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_iperb -v
>>       float_power cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_power -v
>>       float_trigo cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_trigo -v
>>
>>    to:
>>       float_bessel cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_bessel -v -n 15
>>       float_exp_log cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_exp_log -v -n 15
>>       float_iperb cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_iperb -v -n 15
>>       float_power cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_power -v -n 15
>>       float_trigo cd $LTPROOT/testcases/bin; float_trigo -v -n 15
>>
>> 2.) Fixed hackbench tests by reducing number of threads/processes active.
>> Modified runtest/sched:
>>   changed:
>>        hackbench01 hackbench 150 process 1000
>>        hackbench02 hackbench 20 thread 1000
>>   to:
>>        hackbench01 hackbench 5 process 1000
>>        hackbench02 hackbench 10 thread 1000
>>
>>
>> There are a handful of other tests I had to modify, but the point of
>> this email is not to detail everything but instead to start a
>> discussion on how to track *good* settings for different memory
>> configurations (16MB, 32MB, 64MB...).  I can think of a couple
>> possible solutions:
>> 1.) a log somewhere (wiki maybe) of system resources (SDRAM) verses
>> test parameter tweaks so others have an idea of reasonable parameters
>> for the memory intensive tests.
>> 2.) Multiple runtest files based on memory size, I personally don't
>> like this option as it makes a lot of extra files to maintain, but it
>> still is an option.
>> 3.) A more advanced solution would be to have ltp detect the available
>> RAM and adjust these test cases automatically.
>>
>> Sorry if this has already been discussed, I searched LTP but have not
>> found any postings that address this.
>> Regards,
>> Shane
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
>> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
>> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
>> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltp-list mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Reply via email to